The American Foreign-Policy Establishment Is a One-Trick Pony

[newthinking]

The military is a flawed tool that rarely produces real results—but try telling that to Washington.
By Tom Engelhardt
The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-american-foreign-policy-establishment-is-a-one-trick-pony/



 President Barack Obama at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York. (Reuters / Kevin Lamarque)

 There are the news stories that genuinely surprise you, and then there are the ones that you could write in your sleep before they happen. Let me concoct an example for you:

Top American and European military leaders are weighing options to step up the fight against the Islamic State in the Mideast, including possibly sending more US forces into Iraq, Syria, and Libya, just as Washington confirmed the second American combat casualty in Iraq in as many months.

Oh wait, that was actually the lead sentence in a May 3 Washington Times piece by Carlo Muñoz. Honestly, though, it could have been written anytime in the last few months by just about anyone paying any attention whatsoever, and it surely will prove reusable in the months to come (with casualty figures altered, of course). The sad truth is that across the Greater Middle East and expanding parts of Africa, a similar set of lines could be written ahead of time about the use of Special Operations forces, drones, advisers, whatever, as could the sorry results of making such moves in [add the name of your country of choice here].

Put another way, in a Washington that seems incapable of doing anything but worshiping at the temple of the US military, global policy-making has become a remarkably mindless military-first process of repetition. It’s as if, as problems built up in your life, you looked in the closet marked “solutions” and the only thing you could ever see was one hulking, over-armed soldier, whom you obsessively let loose, causing yet more damage.
How Much, How Many, How Often, and How Destructively

In Iraq and Syria, it’s been mission creep all the way. The B-52s barely made it to the battle zone for the first time and were almost instantaneously in the air, attacking Islamic State militants. US firebases are built ever closer to the front lines. The number of special ops forces continues to edge up. American weapons flow in (ending up in god knows whose hands). American trainers and advisers follow in ever increasing numbers, and those numbers are repeatedly fiddled with to deemphasize how many of them are actually there. The private contractors begin to arrive in numbers never to be counted. The local forces being trained or retrained have their usual problems in battle. American troops and advisers who were never, never going to be “in combat” or “boots on the ground” themselves now have their boots distinctly on the ground in combat situations. The first American casualties are dribbling in. Meanwhile, conditions in tottering Iraq and the former nation of Syria grow ever murkier, more chaotic, and less amenable by the week to any solution American officials might care for.

Full Read at:
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-american-foreign-policy-establishment-is-a-one-trick-pony/

[Human101948]

1. And Hillary promises more of the same...

How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk ­ The New York Times

As Hillary Clinton makes another run for president, it can be tempting to
view her hard­edged rhetoric about the world less as deeply felt core principle
than as calculated political maneuver. But Clinton’s foreign­policy instincts are
bred in the bone — grounded in cold realism about human nature and what
one aide calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” It set her apart
from her rival­turned­boss, Barack Obama, who avoided military
entanglements and tried to reconcile Americans to a world in which the United
States was no longer the undisputed hegemon. And it will likely set her apart
from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election. For all their
bluster about bombing the Islamic State into oblivion, neither Donald J.
Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has demonstrated anywhere near the
appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

[Nitram]

2. Three reactions:

1. You are misusing the term "foreign policy establishment." That would be the State Department diplomatic corps who negotiate and schmooze with countries that have their own diplomatic corps and a functioning government. Under Obama there have been a number of successes, including a rapprochement with Cuba, relations with Burma and a nuclear deal with Iran.

2. There is a clear and present danger posed by al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups who are exploiting the breakdown of government and civil wars taking place in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya. Diplomacy cannot work there because there is no one to negotiate with. The administration's policy of helping the country's own people gradually gain the upper hand against groups attempting to take over large swaths of territory and rule them under a horrendous version of Sharia law is probably the best approach to a very difficult and complex situation.

3. In the case of China and Russia, both of which seem determined to expand their territory by annexing parts of neighboring countries or seas, a military presence and alliance with the countries that are threatened is certainly preferable to just standing back and allowing them to be swallowed up.